Archive for the 'Iraq War' Tag Under 'Orange Punch' Category

The horrific car bombs that rocked Baghdad Sunday and killed at least 132 people seemed to be aimed at the Maliki government, a devastating reminder that the government in power can't protect even people in its key ministries. Taken with a bombing Aug. 19 that killed about 100 people, insurgents, still unidentified, have done damage to the Foreign, Finance, Justice and Municipalities ministries. Whoever did thses grisly bombings seemed to have been sophisticated in the unholy business of death and destruction, and getting to buildings that seemed to have been protected.

I'm concerned that this kind of violence, if done persistently enough, might mean stretching out the time for U.S. troops to leave Iraq. An argument against that might be the fact that some Iraqis blamed the Americans "who control everything" for the blasts, as unlikely as that might seem. I just hope the Iraqis get their act together sufficiently to hold elections in January and they aren't marred by too much violence.

There were two huge blasts in Baghdad Wednesday, aimed at the Foreign and Finance ministries, killing more than 100 people and wounding about 600. Hard to tell whether this was a semi-strategic move by Sunni insurgents (nobody has taken "credit" but that's what most assume) to let the Shia-dominated government know they can strike directly at the government, in the heart of Baghdad, or simply taking advantage of an opportune circumstance. We won't know if it's part of a trend until violence escalates -- or doesn't.

Some will say -- are saying -- it was a mistake to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraqi cities June 30, in accordance with the deal worked out by the Bush administration. It's too late to take it back, however. We broke the pottery, but we're handing the country back to those who actually live there.

The standard cliche is that when we send American troops overseas they are fighting "for freedom" or "for democracy." As the U.S. commitment starts to wind down in Iraq, however (at least with all the caveats and maybes we hope it really will wind down) we start to get an inkling of what they were really fighting for: censorship. The Iraqi government is moving ahead with censorship laws, banning some Internet Web sites, forcing Internet cafes to register so government can better keep tabs on them, and urging publishers to ban books. These are the kinds of censorship that many Iraqis found so distasteful under Saddam Hussein, but the wise authorities worry about warping the minds of the young (i.e., letting them think or communicate too much about how phony the authorities are) so Iraq is getting censorship again.

Doesn't it make you feel proud to have spent all that American money and shed all that American blood so Iraqis can enjoy the benefits of state censorship again?

Fighting apparently continued for a second day at Camp Ashraf, the refuge for the Mojahedin-e-Khalq anti-Iranian-government outfit that had been in Iraq since the 1980s and granted protection by the U.S. military. The action puts the U.S. government into a bit of a bind. The MEK has been cooperative with and helpful to the US military and voluntarily disarmed itself. But the U.S. also wants to maintain the pretrense that the Itraqi government is fully sovereign, so it hasn't intervened. One step it might take would be to take the MEK off the the U.S. government's official terrorist organization list -- putting it on was a political maneuver by the Clinton administration during one of those moments when it wanted to make a gesture of friendliness to Iran. That wouldn't stop what has apparently been a pretty brutal attack by Iraqi government forces, but it would send a signal of disapproval.

The Iraqi government has launched an attack on Camp Ashraf, the refuge for some 3,400 members of the People's Mojahedin, or Mojahedin e-Khalq, the Iranian opposition group that took up residence in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. The MEK is listed by the U.S. (unjustly, as I have argued previously in a somewhat different context) as a terrorist group, but this contingent voluntarily gave up their weapons and retreated to the camp on the understanding that the U.S. would protect it. The group cooperated with the U.S. military and provided more than a few chunks of intelligence about Iranian activities and plans in Iraq during the occupation. Now that the U.S.is leaving, however, the current Iraqi government -- closer to Iran than we might like because the Iranians and majority of Iraqis are Shia Muslims -- seems determined to get rid of them.

(I would ask whether invading Iraq in order to establish a government that wants to be closer to Iran was a good geostrategic move, but I wouldn't want to be impertinent -- not much.)

Anyway, part of the Iraqi government's action to show it isn't a puppet of the U.S. is a desire to get rid of the MEK. It looks as if (subject to more information coming out; first-take news stories are almost always at least incomplete and sometimes have serious inaccuracies) the government troops are the villains here, having killed 6 to 11 of the unarmed MEK folks. The Iraqi government says it won't turn these folks over to Iran, but it does want them out of Iraq.

And that's just a relatively minor complication in the process of Iraq actually becoming independent in reality as well as rhetoric. Aren't you glad Bush started this thing?

In accordance with the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA, which also describes the object from which many war-whoopers personally partake in the wars they promote) negotiated by the Bush administration, U.S. combat troops are pulling out of Iraqi cities by a July 1 deadline. (Some U.S. troops will remain in the cities as trainers or advisers.) There has been an upsurge in violence in the last few weeks and while many Iraqis are feeling pleased and independent, some are feeling trepidation that a civil war or something close to it will break out. Fred Kaplan at Slate also worries but thinks things just might work out. Peter Feaver at Foreign Policy magazine is quite a bit more worried.

The U.S. is actually beginning to withdraw troops from Iraqi cities as has been promised would happen by June 30. Iraqi premier Maliki is spinning this as a victory and an expelling of foreign occupiers comparable to the revolt against the British in 1920. I can see domestic political reasons for this, but it's more than a bit ironic, given that the U.S. essentially installed Maliki (at least his ascension wouldn't have happened without U.S. acquiescence) and has sold the continuing presence to the American people as protecting his regime. On the other hand, he has been insistent about meeting the deadline, something some American commanders were reluctant about, so maybe he has achieved virtual independence from the U.S. He may find the going rough, however, as there has been a wave of bombings in advance of the U.S. pullout. Who knows how things will go once the pullout is complete. If Maliki can't provide at least a semblance of protection from violence he could be in trouble.

Here's a link to a video of my friends Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute and David Henderson of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey giving a talk on how things might end in Iraq for the Northern California World Affairs Council. It's pretty long but very informative.

Here's a link to a transcript of Obama's speech in Cairo. The speech itself I thought was fairly innocuous, mostly balanced -- which drives partisans in that part of the world a little crazy, of course. If you step back a bit it still strikes me as curious that it was made at all, but then we Americans seem desperately to want to be loved as we're pushing people around, and endlessly resentful that them furriners don't appreciate all we've done for them. One commentator argued that by giving the speech in Cairo Obama was undermining himself, validating the Muslim Brotherfood and thereby (ironically) strengthening Iran. It's a convoluted argumnt and I'm not sure I buy it, but it's interesting. As our editorial today argued, however, the chief legitimate grievance Muslims have against the U.S. is that we occupy and/or keep military forces in Muslim countries, and Obama isn't about to change that. It's looking like at least a token force in Iraq forever and 10 years in Afghanistan. Why?